A Regular Commentary on Strategic Affairs from a Leading Commentator and Analyst
2018 book project: Little Europe? Twenty-First Century Strategy for Declining Powers

hms iron duke

Sunday, 23 June 2013

Losing the Global Race

Alphen, Netherlands. 23
June. British Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Finance Minister) George Osborne said that Britain must
win “the global race”, which is probably a political metaphor for reducing
deficit spending and increasing productivity. At the crux of his efforts to claw back a
further £11.5bn of savings have been further cuts to the British armed forces. This coming Wednesday he will confirm more defence civilians
will be sacked and contracts with defence industry will be renegotiated,
although sensibly more money will be invested in cyber-defence.So, why is defence being cut further and where
does the 26 June Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) – a cut on top of all the
other cuts – leave the British armed forces?

Speaking openly about the
impact of more cuts the Head of the British Army Sir Peter Wall said, “We have
got to the point in a number of parts in our set-up where we can’t go any
further without seriously damaging our professional competence and our chances
of success in the battlefields of the future”.When serving generals speak out in public there is usually something
amiss.

On the face of it these
cuts are designed to further reduce British public sector borrowing which has been
stuck at around £119bn ($183bn) or 8% of the economy for the past two years.In fact, the savings Osborne seeks for 2015-16 are driven by three political factors; debt
psychosis, the prime minister’s political peccadilloes and the need for a political
‘war chest’ so that Cameron can artificially stimulate the British economy
prior to the 2015 general election.

Critically, the
funding of several departments of state are to be ‘ring-fenced’ (protected) which
means that some departments of state (including defence) will face deeper cuts
than they ideally should.The effect of
this ‘ring-fencing’ not only undermines national security and renders the CSR
utterly unbalanced but leads to downright perversity.

This morning Labour
luvvie Dame Helena Kennedy said that the government must not cut aid to the world's poor
people.If only British aid went to the
world’s poor people.For example,
Britain is funding a project at the University of Tilburg here at the Netherlands
entitled “Innovation and Growth” which seeks to make African companies more innovative.Some €4m ($5.2m) of British taxpayer’s money is
being given to a Dutch university for a project in which there is neither
British university nor institutional involvement nor indeed any direct African
involvement.Nor is this the first such
Tilburg project the British have funded. In other words, ‘ring-fencing’ is a political
metaphor for waste of British money and nothing is done to stop it.

This brings me to the hard
choices Britain’s armed forces will soon have to confront as a consequence of
these cuts. Britain either retains a
rump conventional force that can be sent ever so slightly further than Brighton
for a day or two, or invests in a dedicated nuclear deterrent that hopefully
will do nothing...ever.The British
defence budget can no longer afford both.

This political assault on
the nuclear deterrent is further compounded by the way it is to be funded.The Treasury (Finance Ministry) now insists
the deterrent be funded by the defence budget whereas in the past it was paid
for out of the national contingency fund.The friction this shift generates will become all too apparent in
2015-16 when costs kick-in for the future deterrent, the successor to the UK’s
Trident sea-based nuclear deterrent, which will cost an estimated £15-20bn ($23bn-$31bn)
(and of course being Britain will in fact cost far higher).

Therefore, London may have to think
laterally (heaven forbid!).That could
mean one of two things.Whilst there
would be strategic and operational disadvantages the new Astute-class
nuclear attack submarines could be fitted to carry supersonic nuclear-tipped cruise
missiles. The other alternative is stark; respond to Obama's Berlin speech by making virtue out of necessity and announce that Britain
will set an example to the world and disarm.That is where the logic of these cuts is leading Britain and, of course, the Liberal Eurocrats would love that.

The 2010 Strategic
Security and Defence Review (SDSR) was meant to be the definitive and defining
major cut to to the British armed forces.The simple truth is that the 2010 SDSR was an utterly un-strategic
retrenchment and is still cutting a deep trench through Britain’s demoralised armed
forces.These further cuts will not only
leave an already hollowed-out force hollow to its core they will have a
negative impact way beyond the ‘value’ of any savings.Critically, Britain’s already waning
influence in Washington, NATO and the EU will again nose dive.

Britain is losing the
global race because the very people who talk about winning it cannot think
strategically.

About Me

Julian Lindley-French is Senior Fellow of the Institute of Statecraft, Director of Europa Analytica & Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow, National Defense University, Washington DC. An internationally-recognised strategic analyst, advisor and author he was formerly Eisenhower Professor of Defence Strategy at the Netherlands Defence Academy,and Special Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of Leiden. He is a Fellow of Respublica in London, and a member of the Strategic Advisory Group of the Atlantic Council of the United States in Washington.
Latest books: The Oxford Handbook on War 2014 (Paperback) (2014; 709 pages). (Oxford: Oxford University Press) & "Little Britain? Twenty-First Strategy for a Middling European Power". (www.amazon.com)
The Friendly-Clinch Health Warning: The views contained herein are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any institution.